Woodall v. Wayne Cnty.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: LAURIE J. MICHELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Citation: Woodall v. Wayne Cnty., 590 F.Supp.3d 988 (E.D. Mich. 2022)
• Docket Number: Case No. 17-13707
• Decision Date: 10 March 2022
• Parties: Katrina WOODALL, Katana Johnston, Kelly Davis, and Latoya Hearst, Plaintiffs, v. WAYNE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

590 F.Supp.3d 988

Katrina WOODALL, Katana Johnston, Kelly Davis, and Latoya Hearst, Plaintiffs,

v.WAYNE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 17-13707

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed March 10, 2022

Michael R. Dezsi, Law Office of Michael R. Dezsi, PLLC, Royal Oak, MI, for Plaintiffs.

Davidde A. Stella, Paul T. O'Neill, Wayne County Corporation Counsel, Detroit, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST WOODALL, JOHNSTON, DAVIS, AND HEARST [89, 90, 91, 92]

LAURIE J. MICHELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Four women—Katrina Woodall, Katana Johnston, Kelly Davis, and Latoya Hearst—were all incarcerated at the Wayne County Jail at various points in 2013 and 2014. They say they were strip-searched by Jail officers in humiliating ways. Specifically, they say that Officer Teri Graham, who works the registry at the Jail, strip-searched them in groups of five or more, made derogatory comments about their bodies, allowed men to see them being strip-searched, and maintained an unsanitary environment. Apart from the registry, Plaintiffs also say they were strip searched in the housing unit in front of male officers. And because many women—at least 99—claim they were subject to similar strip searches, Plaintiffs accuse Wayne County, the municipality in charge of the Jail, of ignoring a pattern of constitutional violations and failing to train its officers or otherwise address the issue, allowing the violations to continue.

After a lengthy procedural history, Defendants' motions for summary judgment against each Plaintiff are before this Court. (ECF Nos. 89, 90, 91, 92.) Because Plaintiffs' claims against Graham that arose in 2013 are barred by the statute of limitations, those claims are dismissed. But plaintiffs have shown a reasonable jury could find for them as to their Monell claim against Wayne County for the 2013 searches, so those claims survive. One plaintiff, Hearst, also has claims for searches that occurred in January 2014. Hearst's claim against Graham that arose in January 2014 survives, but her Monell claim based on her January 2014 strip searches is dismissed.

I.

A. Facts

All four plaintiffs say that they were subject to unconstitutional strip searches at Wayne County Jail, but the details of these searches vary slightly for each plaintiff.

Katrina Woodall was detained at the Jail multiple times in 2013, the last date being July 9, 2013. (See ECF No. 89-6, PageID.2386, 2396.) She states that Corporal Terri Graham, who works at registry, strip searched her in a group of eight to 12 women. (Id. at PageID.2396.) Woodall claims that the officers, including Graham, intentionally waited for the "bullpen," (i.e. the cell where detainees would wait before being registered into the Jail) to get full before taking everyone upstairs and that "they was lazy to do them one by one." (Id. at PageID.2387.) Woodall also testified that Graham called her names like "bleeding hog" and "stanky." (Id. at PageID.2397.) She also complained of being strip-searched in front of other women while she was menstruating. (Id. at PageID.2383.) Woodall described one incident where a male officer saw her being strip searched through a window in the strip search room and commented on the underwear she had on. (Id. at PageID.2415.)

Katana Johnston¹ arrived at the Jail on June 17, 2013 and left on August 8, 2013. (ECF No. 92-4, PageID.3069–3070.) Johnston states that she could see male trustees (incarcerated people who perform cleaning and other services for the Jail) through the window while being strip searched at registry. (Id. at PageID.3070, 3073.) She complains that she was also strip searched while she was on her period and forced to bleed on herself during the search because Graham did not give her a pad. (Id. ) Johnston asked Graham for another pad after the search, but Graham said she would only receive one upstairs. (Id. at PageID.3071.) Johnston testified that Graham said that "we stank," and called the detainees "funky bitches." (Id. ) Graham also called Johnston a "dope fiend" because she had marks on her arm. (Id. at PageID.3072.) Johnston also claims that she was strip searched in a group of five women. (Id. at PageID.3073.)

Kelly Davis was admitted into the Jail on February 26, 2013 and left on June 14, 2013. (ECF No. 90-6, PageID.2638.) During her registry strip search, Davis says that Graham searched her in front of other female detainees or in view of men who were on the other side of a window looking into the room where she was searched. (Id. at PageID.2649.) She specifically remembers a male officer coming into the adjacent room that has a window looking into the strip-search room and asking Graham if she has any candy for sale (Graham had a side-business selling snacks to Jail personnel). (Id. at PageID2647.) Davis testified that Graham made "smart remarks" during these searches, including saying that Davis was never pregnant despite knowing that she had suffered a miscarriage. (Id. at PageID.2646.) Davis also describes an incident when she was being taken back to the housing unit by a female officer and the officer groped her breasts and vagina. (Id. at PageID.2641.)

Latoya Hearst was detained at the Jail in July 2013 and from January 7, 2014 through January 10, 2014. (ECF No. 91-6, PageID.2856.) She testified that Graham "used to wait until the bullpen was full of us, like five, six, maybe seven of us, bring us all in, have us all strip search[ed]." (Id. at PageID.2859.) She also stated that Graham would say "she don't want to smell our nasty funky pussies. She don't want to smell our nasty asses." (Id. ) Hearst testified that she could hear men outside the registry during these searches but does not allege that they saw her being strip-searched at registry. (Id. at PageID.2863, 2866.) She also remembers that in 2013, there was a "shakedown" of the housing unit, and she was strip searched in view of a male sergeant, who was intentionally looking at the women being searched, and two male officers. (Id. at PageID.2859.)

In addition to the four plaintiffs' testimony, Plaintiffs have submitted a number of declarations from other detainees recounting their similar experiences with strip searches at the Jail. (See generally ECF Nos. 18-2, 18-3, 18-4, 18-5.) Many of these declarations do not specify the dates for which the declarant was detained or the dates the strip searches took place. For those declarations that do specify dates of incarceration, they range from the 1990s to 2016. (Id. )

Graham denies all of the accusations against her. (See, e.g. , ECF No. 90-11, PageID.2732.) Before November 2013, the Jail's policy was to conduct strip searches out of the view of the public and other detainees "when possible." (ECF No. 102-3, PageID.3345.) Graham states that during this time, she would take up to five detainees to be strip searched, depending on how many women were waiting to be registered. (ECF No. 90-11, PageID.2714.) But the Jail changed its strip-search policy on November 22, 2013, mandating that all strip searches of female detainees be conducted one at a time, and not in a group. (ECF No. 102-2, PageID.3341.) Since that date, says Graham, she has only conducted strip searches one by one. (ECF No. 90-11, PageID.2726.)

Graham also denies making any derogatory comments to any detainee while processing them into the Jail (id. at PageID.2725), which is in line with the County's policy to avoid making derogatory comments (ECF No. 102-3, PageID. 3345).

And regarding Plaintiffs' testimony that they were searched at registry in view of male officers and trustees, Graham states that no men were allowed in the change-out room, which is where Plaintiffs allege they saw men through the window. (ECF No. 90-11, PageID.2720, 2723.) The Jail's policy specifically states that a strip search "is to be conducted by an officer of the same gender as the inmate being searched and out of view of persons of the opposite gender." (ECF No. 102-3, PageID.3345.)

As far as training goes, Graham testified that she did not take any classes on how to conduct a strip search. (ECF No. 90-11, PageID.2720.) Instead, she received an explanation on how to conduct strip searches from the officers at the registry when she first started. (Id. ) Graham also testified that she last read the strip search policy when it was changed in November 2013. (Id. at PageID.2725.)

B. Procedural History

In 2017, a few years after the alleged violations took place, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Wayne County, Wayne County Sheriff Benny Napoleon in his official capacity, and Graham in her individual capacity. (ECF No. 1.) The case was assigned to District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Graham violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and that the County and Sheriff are also liable under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York , 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

In response, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 10.) The Court granted the motion in part, dismissing two of the plaintiffs based on the statute-of-limitations and holding that it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief for lack of standing. (ECF No. 31, PageID.1390, 1396.) But the Court rejected Defendants' arguments on qualified immunity, inadequate pleading of the Monell claim, and improper service. (Id. at PageID.1398–1399, 1401.)

Later in the litigation, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. (ECF No. 51.) The Court granted this motion. (ECF No. 81.) Defendants appealed.

Meanwhile, Defendants filed a separate motion for summary judgment against each plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 89 (Woodall), 90 (Davis), 91 (Hearst), 92 (Johnston).) Before these motions could be decided, the Court staye...